“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

As you can imagine, everyone had an opinion about this statement, including GLAAD and Phil’s check-signer, A&E, who suspended the star indefinitely.

One of the conservative tweeters I follow — one of those Christians convinced that Obama is going to have him killed for his faith — lives for stuff like this. He quickly took to the Twitterverse and posted a side-by-side image of Pope Francis and Phil, with the following caption: “Both preach truth on homosexual sin. One is TIME’s Person of the Year. The other JUST GOT FIRED.”

The point is worth considering. Even though Phil used crass, juvenile language to articulate his point, what he was getting at was his belief that homosexual “desire” is unnatural and inherently disordered. This opinion isn’t unique to Phil. It’s actually shared by a majority of his fans.

It’s also shared, to some extent, by the Pope. Yes, that Pope — the one on the cover not just of TIME but also of The Advocate.

Of course, The Advocate knows the Pope’s thoughts on LGBT issues, including marriage equality. But as they note, Francis’ “stark change in rhetoric from his two predecessors” has set a positive example for how religious people ought to treat LGBT persons — an example that Phil, an elder at the White’s Ferry Road Church of Christ, ought to have followed in his GQ interview.

To compare Papa Duck to Papa Francis, as conservatives are doing, is, in my opinion, to misrepresent both of them. Francis, though he privately holds to certain doctrine which some might see as “anti-gay,” has not used any of his public-speaking opportunities to share these with the world. Instead, Francis has repeatedly offered grace to the LGBT community. At one point, he even uttered what might go down as the expression of public humility that singlehandedly saved the church: “Who am I to judge?”

Phil, on the other hand, went on record as rhetorically asking how any man could ever enjoy gay intercourse, since vaginal intercourse is better. (Which certainly makes you wonder how he’s able to make the comparison.)

There are two notable differences between the Pope’s views on sex, and Phil’s. First, the Pope is a trained philosopher, and has undoubtedly spent countless hours examining, challenging and refining his views. Phil — if we are to take his brief statements on homosexuality as representative of his position — seems to hold a view on sex that manages to reduce the entire orthodox understanding of “desire” down to nothing more than a juvenile “tooshie = bad, vagina = good.”

The second difference has to do with tone. In fairness to Phil, the tone of his off-the-cuff statements may not accurately represent his philosophy on this issue, but I do think it’s a fair representation of what many see as his Southern charm. There’s a way to disagree with majority opinion without coming across as disagreeable. The Pope knows how to do this. Phil does not. As a result, we respect Papa and shame Phil.

For the record, I’m undecided on whether or not I think Phil actually is homophobic, although I certainly think his statement was offensive, and not only to the LGBT community. But I also think that if I were to spend a day calling ducks with Phil, I’d probably end up liking him — even in spite of his position on gay men. It’s quite possible to throw one’s political support behind traditional, heterosexual marriage, and yet not be bigoted.

I’m reminded of something Bill Maher said during the height of the Paula Deen controversy: “Do we always have to make people go away?” I think the question applies in this situation too.

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them? One of the biggest pop-culture icons of today just took center stage to “educate” us about sexuality. I see this as an opportunity to further the discussion, to challenge his limited understanding of human desire, to engage with him and his rather sizable audience — most of whom, by the way, probably share his views — and to rise above the endless sea of tweet-hate to help move our LGBT conversations to where they need to go.

G.K. Chesterton said that bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” If he is right — and he usually is — then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.

Brandon Ambrosino is a writer and professional dancer based in Baltimore.

"Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them? ... see this as an opportunity to further the discussion, to challenge his limited understanding of human desire, to engage with him and his rather sizable audience — most of whom, by the way, probably share his views — and to rise above the endless sea of tweet-hate to help move our LGBT conversations to where they need to go."

Maybe the difference is that Ambrosino seeks to bring grace to the discussion instead of hatred. I think he should be listened to.

Love the sinner but hate the sin, interesting since he distills the sin down to sex, not love between people. As a matter, some of the arguments people lob at homosexuals could easily fall on heterosexuals, like if you talk about a single sex home raising kids (death and divorce can result in a single parent/sex guardian, and for couples were procreation is no longer their concern, due to either health or age, then marriage for them is necessary anymore because of what, no child producing ~ which probably happened very early in their marriage at 16 or so). And the comparing laying with beasts to whatever social group you hate at the time, if it wasn't don't date outside your race, it was never marry outside your race (hey they made laws to segregate that as well), and along the way people kept using that laying with beasts line, except when talking about their cousins or such. If not creed, they nationality, if not nationality, politics and so forth, love the sinner enough to hate them for whatever your book of the holy is interpreted at that time in history when propping yourself up is permissible by knocking others down. Maybe the human race isn't getting better, the world just smaller with tv and the internet giving instant review of the witch hunts.

I know nothing about this person but this guys phrasing seemingly simple bigotry jumped out at me as gender confusion or some sort of neurosis. Word placement says a lot. He's humanizing body parts and follows posessive words with an ambiguous one. Realizes his Freudian slip and then rambles

I'm so glad most people under 30 are smart enough to realize that this anti-gay anti-black religious nonsense is just that: nonsense. I don't care what they do with their "beliefs" as long as they keep them within the privacy of their own homes. Isn't that what the anti-gay folks always say to gay people? Except they substitute the word "lifestyle" in there.

More evidence that the liberal fascists have been brutally oppressing the mass of the U.S. populace. I actually got called a bigot for saying I didn't believe it was an appropriate for a man to violently and repeatedly thrust his member into a woman's throat, even if she (literally) "asks for it." You're telling me I have to raise a child in a nation that believes that any sexual behavior, no matter how potentially painful, dangerous, or alien from affection it is, I have to say it's just super?

"How could any man could ever enjoy gay intercourse, since vaginal intercourse is better. (Which certainly makes you wonder how he’s able to make the comparison.)"

An interesting point. I once read an article in Playboy that cautioned men to be careful about insisting on having anal intercourse with women, saying it was the bacterial equivalent of putting your penis in a sewer. I don't recall anyone losing their job over that remark.

I'm not sure what was crass or juvenile about Phil Robertson's choice of words. He used the same anatomical terms my doctor uses. I think the point of the article is that Robertson's assumption about which body part is automatically more appealing to a man should be considered crass and juvenile, which is a point of view, if not one universally held. But I keep reading (here and elsewhere) that Robertson's vocabulary was somehow the problem, and I'm not getting it. The way I see it, "tushie" (which this article uses) is cutesie and juvenile; anus is neutral and adult.

Great article. It raises a lot of considerations not heard elsewhere. I actually thought that the Pope's views and Phil's positions were pretty much the same: "It's sin but who am I to judge? That's God's job." This article correctly points out that Phil Robertson's response also shared his personal reaction to male on male sex and his inability to relate to other desires, and that was crass and bad public relations, and I agree with the author on that.

One mistake the article makes that I've seen elsewhere, is to equate Paula Deen, Chik-fil-A and Martin Bashir's stumbles with Phil Robertson. I see no resemblance between Phil Robertson's remarks and these other cases of public reprobation for discriminatory behavior and views.

I'd like to point out that Phil Robertson was responding to interview questions about his beliefs (personal and religious) and he answered honestly. He didn't claim his comments were anything other than personal belief and experience. They weren't directed at any individual gay person or for some political bandwagon. On the other hand, Paula Deen was shown/admitted to have used verbally abusive racial epithets in the workplace, exploited her poor black head cook who created many of the dishes in her multimillion dollar empire, and was the subject of complaints of racial discrimination in her restaurants. Chik-fil-A's flap included the President/owner using corporate money for anti-gay activism and claiming that gays were bringing God's judgment down on America -- the formula that is used by gay-hate groups like Westboro Baptist Church to justify attacks on gays. Finally, Martin Bashir's misstep wasn't just a misstep: it was an ugly, bitter, personal racist rant against Sarah Palin that was so beyond inappropriate he appeared mentally ill.

In my opinion, the other celebrities should be judged/fired/boycotted for the kinds of behavior they engaged in. Phil Robertson shouldn't be harassed or punished just for honestly answering questions in an interview about his religious and personal beliefs.

everyone here missed the point, including the author. the story here is how phil robertson and A&E switched places in being the "victim and the bad guy". who is which is determined on your point of view. Phil most likely violated a contractual clause, whether a straight up clause or a moral clause. he is an employee of A&E and they have the right terminate him if he is in violation of A&E's contract and/or standard of company representation and image. he was being interviewed as an employee of A&E. if it is a moral clause, he said more than simply paraphrase the Bible. A&E on the other hand flip-flopped on the issue and so their standard is ambiguous. They apparently have no standards as long as the questionable conduct is profitable or their censure would diminish their profits.

The
author missed the point. He is comparing what he "wishes" they said
with what they said. Vulgar? Both words are used extensively on prime time TV!
What is "Vulgar" is the author "deliberately missing" the
real point of the radical left wing controversy. Like his invented example “one of those Christians convinced that Obama is going to
have him killed for his faith” which I think every reader should realize for
the lie it is. What we are faced with is a ultra-left wing radical author
trying to worm their way out of being caught with a radical “spin” on their
lips and weaseling out of it.

My definition of bigotry is disliking human beings because of their "race" or "gender" created by God the Almighty and "religion" taught to the Apostles by Jesus Christ to pass on to the world. Being gay is a chosen lifestyle and my disliking the lifestyle doesn't make me a bigot. People should keep their sexual preference in the bedroom where it belongs. We all don't have to know how anyone like to take their sex at least I don't.

Awesome article. Thank you for being reasonable. Making people "go away" or at least unemployable for opinions unpopular with the ruling establishment is the stuff of McCarthyism. McCarthy did not know when to stop. Neither does GLAAD.

The bible was created by man,who told their lesser's ( those who couldn't read or write) that it was the "word" of god. That proposition is substantially different than "coming from on high". It has further been corrupted by every charlatan preacher to control his own flock of believers, too happy and not to have to think for themselves. Prejudice, bias, bigotry, fear and hate will be with us as long as the suppercillous, sanctimonius, psalm-singers are with us. Religion is the curse of mankind and the righteous hatred it spews forth is its distressing product.

As has been demonstrated and one would hope TIME would make some sort of editorial correct, THAT was not all he said and NOR was it charming. You conveniently left out his racist comments and his comments comparing being gay to being into bestiality etc. It wasn't some sort of "dude" talk. It was highly racist, bigoted and very offensive.

The amount of people defending him simply showed they had either not read the article or were in fact defending his racism.

TIME you usually do a much better job than this. Do correct yourselves and include the racist comments as well.

Why don't you guys just admit that you are obsessed with gay people and gay sex even though you keep screaming that it's a "sin." If you don't like it don't do it. In the mean time, pun intended, BUTT OUT. Lol

@Ro12 Ro12 this is not what the article is about. It is about the whether or not to engage people you disagree with in debate or to revile them. Please read the article before posting off-topic. You look ridiculous.

No, actually a clear majority of Americans don't believe that black people were better off under Jim Crowe or that men should marry children. Phil is learning that you can't alienate your fans for long and that is why they are leaving him in droves.

@Buzzramdog So what if his gay comments were offensive? Who cares? The comments were not inciting violence against gays and therefore are free speech. Jeez we have religious people being persecuted all over the world for their beliefs, but here in America gays whine because not everyone can be publicly shamed into agreeing with them..yet

@MichaelAllen2 it seems to me that you are the hateful one. with your use of exclamation marks, suggesting you are yelling your statements, and unsupported, offensive, accusations like "bigot" show that you were probably angry or "hateful" toward Rosita when writhing this.

@MichaelAllen2 you seem to me to me more hateful then him. with your use of exclamation marks suggesting you are yelling these statements and irrational accusations of offensive labels like bigot you seem to be clouded in your thought, possibly by anger and the so called "hate."

How bout you try again? People like you demonstrate the unfortunate effectiveness of left wing propaganda. THERE IS NO 'GAY GENE'. Nothing in a persons genome determines sexual preference. It is a CHOICE.

@FreeSpeech97 you are immoral, I am immoral, we are all immoral. the correct statement would be that they are non-Christian or that they decide that they have the authority to chose what is true and what is not in the Bible.

@FreeSpeech97 a month later: You obviously did not bother reading my entire comment. So you support his racist rants as well? You support his belief men should be allowed to marry girls as young as 15? Easier to train that way? This country should not be rewarding his phony good ol' boy attitude along with his belief in the other things. Sorry but there should be no tolerance for intolerance.

Remember when those "poor" Christians boycotted Starbucks for the "crime" of supporting marriage equality? They called the CEO the "devil of sodomy" and threw a temper tantrum from the pulpits. Where was your concern for free speech THEN? Hypocrite.

And yet you have nothing to overturn the scientific consensus that being gay is not a choice. Don't you think it's time you stopped sticking your fingers in your ears and listened to FACTS? The only people who think you can change someone's orientation are folks who think you SHOULD change someone's orientation.